Re: SV: Call for Review: Last Call Working Draft of Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines 2.0

Sören,
Thank you for reviewing the document. Input and 
support from stakeholder groups such as yours is 
very important in developing this document.

Jutta

At 2:34 PM +0100 1/17/05, Sören Hansson wrote:
>Comments, on Last Call Working Draft of 
>Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines 2.0, 
>from the Swedish National Accessibility Centre 
>at the Office of the Disability Ombudsman by 
>Sören Hansson.
>
>Comments on the set questions
>1) We believe this draft ATAG 2.0 includes the 
>features that are necessary in an authoring tool 
>that is accessible and that supports authoring 
>of accessible content.
>We also believe that the priorities of the checkpoints are appropriate.
>
>2) We are sure that this draft ATAG 2.0 is 
>easier to understand than ATAG 1.0, but we have 
>no comment on if the document can be applied to 
>a wider range of authoring tools than ATAG 1.0.
>
>3) It is too early to say if the ATAG 2.0 
>Working Draft reached the right balance between 
>giving developers freedom to work creatively to 
>meet the guidelines, while at the same time 
>developing objective success criteria for each 
>checkpoint. Let's try it.
>
>4) It is reasonable to refer to the accessibility standard, ISO 16071.
>
>5) We believe that it is a useful approach and 
>that it is explained adequately in the document 
>that authoring tool makers who claim conformance 
>to ATAG must declare in their conformance 
>statement whether their output conforms to WCAG 
>1.0 and/or WCAG 2.0.
>
>We have no other comments.
>
>Best regards
>Sören Hansson
>++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>Postal address:
>Office of the Disability Ombudsman
>National Accessibility Centre
>Sören Hansson
>Box 49132, SE-100 29 Stockholm, Sweden
>Visitors´ address: S:t Eriksgatan 44, 3 tr.
>E-mail: soren.hansson@ho.se
>Phone: +46 8 6930367 or +46 70 2802925
>Text phone: +46 8 21 39 39,
>Fax: +46 8 20 43 53
>Website: www.ho.se
>
>
>-----Ursprungligt meddelande-----
>Från: w3c-wai-ig-request@w3.org 
>[mailto:w3c-wai-ig-request@w3.org] För Judy 
>Brewer
>Skickat: den 7 december 2004 06:18
>Till: WAI Interest Group
>Ämne: Call for Review: Last Call Working Draft 
>of Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines 2.0
>
>
>Dear WAI Interest Group Participants:
>
>The Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines 2.0 (ATAG 2.0) has reached Last
>Call Working Draft status. It will be under review until 18 January 2005.
>Information on the document and how to comment follows. The document is
>available at:
> 
><http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/WD-ATAG20-20041122/>http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/WD-ATAG20-20041122/
>
>WHAT IS ATAG 2.0?
>
>Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines 2.0 (ATAG 2.0) is part of a series
>of accessibility guidelines published by the W3C Web Accessibility
>Initiative (WAI). The other guidelines in this series include the Web
>Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) and the User Agent Accessibility
>Guidelines (UAAG).
>
>ATAG 2.0 provides guidelines for designing authoring tools that lower
>barriers to Web accessibility for people with disabilities. An authoring
>tool that conforms to these guidelines will promote accessibility by
>providing an accessible authoring interface to authors with disabilities,
>as well as enabling, supporting, and promoting the production of accessible
>Web content by all authors.
>
>WHAT DOES "LAST CALL" MEAN?
>
>A Last Call Working Draft announcement means that the Working Group
>believes that it has satisfied its technical requirements and dependencies
>with other W3C Working Groups. The Working Group believes that the Working
>Draft has stabilized. It seeks a broad review of ATAG 2.0 during this
>period, and expects to request advancement to Candidate Recommendation
>(where the focus of review will be on implementation testing) after this
>Last Call review is completed. More information on the W3C Process is
>available at:
>          http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Process/
>
>HOW CAN I COMMENT?
>
>Please send comments to the following address by 18 January 2004. Note that
>this is an extension from the deadline for comments which is listed in the
>document:
>          <mailto:w3c-wai-au@w3.org>w3c-wai-au@w3.<mailto:w3c-wai-au@w3.org>org
>A public record of comments is available at:
> 
><http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au>au/
>Review and send comments on the following Last Call Working Draft:
> 
><http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/WD-ATAG20-20041122/>http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/WD-ATAG20-20041122/
>You may find the following overview helpful for context:
>          http://www.w3.org/WAI/intro/atag
>In addition, an updated Working Draft of a supporting document,
>Implementation Techniques for ATAG 2.0, is available for review, though it
>is not in Last Call status:
>          http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/WD-ATAG20-TECHS-20041122/
>
>The Working Group is particularly interested in discussion of the following
>questions:
>
>    1. Does this document include the features that you think are necessary
>in an authoring tool that is accessible and that supports authoring of
>accessible content? Are the priorities of the checkpoints appropriate?
>
>    2. Is this document easier to understand than ATAG 1.0, and can it be
>applied to a wider range of authoring tools than ATAG 1.0?
>          ( http://www.w3.org/TR/ATAG10 )
>
>    3. Has the ATAG 2.0 Working Draft reached the right balance between
>giving developers freedom to work creatively to meet the guidelines, while
>at the same time developing objective success criteria for each checkpoint?
>
>    4. This document references another accessibility standard, ISO 16071,
>which provides guidelines for software and operating system accessibility.
>Unlike W3C, ISO charges a fee for its documents. In this case, the document
>costs 110 Swiss francs, or about US$90. Is it reasonable to reference this
>document?
>
>    5. Authoring tool makers who claim conformance to ATAG must declare in
>their conformance statement whether their output conforms to WCAG 1.0
>and/or WCAG 2.0. Is this a useful approach? Is this explained adequately in
>the document?
>
>WHAT CHANGES WERE MADE SINCE THE LAST WORKING DRAFT?
>
>Since the last Working Draft of ATAG 2.0, the following changes have been
>made:
>
>    - References to specific sections of the ISO 16071 software
>accessibility guidelines have been added.
>    - Old Checkpoints 2.1, 2.2 and 2.3 have been merged into a New
>Checkpoint 2.1.
>    - Checkpoint 3.4 (care reusing generated alternate content) has been
>raised to Priority 1.
>    - Checkpoint 3.8 (features related to accessibility) has been lowered to
>Priority 3.
>    - New Checkpoint 3.9 (Provide a tutorial on the process of accessible
>authoring) has been added.
>    - Checkpoint 4.1 has been reworded and moved to New Checkpoint 4.3.
>    - Wording of checkpoints have been modified to be more easily testable.
>    - Checkpoint success criteria, conformance level information, and
>glossary terms are much more detailed.
>
>NOTE: This message may be circulated to other lists, but please be careful
>to avoid cross-postings.
>
>Thank you in advance for your review.
>
>Regards,
>
>Matt May, Team Contact for the Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines
>Working Group
>Judy Brewer, Director, Web Accessibility Initiative, W3C
>
>
>--
>Judy Brewer    +1.617.258.9741    http://www.w3.org/WAI
>Director, Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI), World Wide Web Consortium (W3C)
>MIT/CSAIL Building 32-G530
>32 Vassar Street
>Cambridge, MA,  02139,  USA

Received on Tuesday, 18 January 2005 20:09:21 UTC